LDO's w/ a college degree may immediately off-ramp to 18xx designator at 3 years commissioned service (YCS) through the Without Board Action (WOBA) process (i.e., outside of the biannual lateral transfer board)

Probationary officer LDO are allowed a maximum of 5 YCS to off-ramp to 18xx; after which, they will go to the Probationary Officer Continuation & Redesignation (POCR) Board and likely be sent to the IRR unless otherwise eligible for redesignation. The term probationary officer is the same as non-LDO - an officer with less than 6 YCS.

Non-probationary officers (greater than 6 YCS) aren't subject to POCR, but can be subject to an selective early retirement (SER) board. (I didn't see a date when the SER's would begin, but maybe I missed it). If they don't get a SER, then they will face certain FOS at promotion boards for FY-21 and beyond since there are no more control grade quotas for IWC LDO.

I think it could be said that:

Anyone applying for LDO really needs to consider that they need to have their bachelors within 5 years of commissioning or they will be discharged.

Current LDO under 5 YCS are in serious jeopardy if they do not already have their bachelors.

I would hope that future LDO boards almost make a bachelors degree a requirement for selection consideration; otherwise, we risk someone who has 8-13 years of service getting sent home at the 13-18 years of service mark (and without a retirement)

LDO is truly nothing more than another way of getting an 18xx commission. While it might be the only way for a Sailor with more than 5 years of service to get one now (since at least the 1810 program authorization has said no more than 4 years / waiverable to 5 years) they really need to consider the degree implications and need to off-ramp ASAP.

Those that don't have a degree and might not get one quick enough OR have significant time as an enlisted Sailor really need to look at CWO - which again, requires at least 14 years of service and being a Chief Petty Officer.

There's a lot going on in this NAVADMIN so if I misread something or someone interpreted differently, I'm all ears.

It's unfortunate. Seems we've twisted the purpose of the LDO and now it's simply a supplemental accession method to ensure adequate officer capacity (commissioning for numbers value instead of content value). At some point, such decision making leads down a path of negative results.

yoshi wrote:It's unfortunate. Seems we've twisted the purpose of the LDO and now it's simply a supplemental accession method to ensure adequate officer capacity (commissioning for numbers value instead of content value). At some point, such decision making leads down a path of negative results.

Considering the rumblings I've heard regarding this issue, it is certainly not a new idea or one made recklessly. I presume the people managing the community have a pretty good idea of what they're trying to do.

It's not this community - it's the navy. I'm curious to get your take - what do you think the Navy is trying to accomplish? Do you see a balancing act between wardroom competence and numbers management (I do) or do you feel we have sufficient wardroom competence to afford such a change?

yoshi wrote:It's not this community - it's the navy. I'm curious to get your take - what do you think the Navy is trying to accomplish? Do you see a balancing act between wardroom competence and numbers management (I do) or do you feel we have sufficient wardroom competence to afford such a change?

Competence in what?

I see a lot of smart people who frequently have spent so long squirreled away at three letter agencies, fleet cyber/cyber teams, NIOCs, etc. that they have little exposure to the big picture and why it all matters. Critical thinking, understanding the impact of strategy and operations, and extensive Navy/Joint exposure to put the other stuff into context is lacking.

yoshi wrote:It's not this community - it's the navy. I'm curious to get your take - what do you think the Navy is trying to accomplish? Do you see a balancing act between wardroom competence and numbers management (I do) or do you feel we have sufficient wardroom competence to afford such a change?

Shortly after I wrote the article posted above I received a phone call from the LDO Community Manager. He assured me all was well with the LDO community and that there was nothing to worry about.

While that may be true for some other Navy LDO designators, it isn't the case for Cryptology.

I remember the days when there were multiple CAPT LDOs in our community, some of them in high-impact jobs. While their role wasn't optimized, it was present at all ranks.

Today, we are left with an alternate path commissioning. Nothing more.

@COMEVIL:I fear you are correct. As for detailers, there is no latitude, willingness, or benefit for them to go off script; the response doesn't surprise.

@Sum1:If you prefer, you can use experience, know-how, history, instinct, strength, accomplishment, personality, passion, and many other terms in place of competence. These traits are, in my opinion, more immediately found in LDOs than straight stick officers. It makes sense, given the experience (as a human and a service member) gap between a 44 year LCDR LDO who has actually worked the job for which they now make decisions and a 32 year old LCDR who hasn't. Those experiences and traits used to be common in wardrooms back when we had 45 year old LTs (~pre- WWI). The entire point of the LDO program was to capitalize on those traits and inject that value into the wardroom.

So, what do you think the Navy is trying to accomplish and should we afford such a change?

COMEVIL wrote:Today, we are left with an alternate path commissioning. Nothing more.

The horse is dead.

Unsure if the horse you're referring to is the "Mustang" part of the community, or just the discussion that we always have about IWC & the LDO/CWO community; however, I thought that this image would be appropriate for either/both possibilities....

...Given the release of NAVADMIN 070/18. Appears that the LDO community for the Intelligence Community is going the way of the dodo.

COMEVIL wrote:Today, we are left with an alternate path commissioning. Nothing more.

The horse is dead.

Unsure if the horse you're referring to is the "Mustang" part of the community, or just the discussion that we always have about IWC & the LDO/CWO community; however, I thought that this image would be appropriate for either/both possibilities....

...Given the release of NAVADMIN 070/18. Appears that the LDO community for the Intelligence Community is going the way of the dodo.

Given the restrictions to the LDO community, and the extremely strict requirements for OCS, I see a steady fall in the number of mustangs in our (CW) community in general.